←back to thread

Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea

(www.eff.org)
604 points wyldfire | 6 comments | 04 Mar 21 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.766s | source | bottom
Show context
dleslie ◴[04 Mar 21 16:49 UTC] No.26344736[source]▶
This captures my feelings on the issue:

> That framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads.

I don't want to be tracked. I never have wanted to be tracked. I shouldn't have to aggressively opt-out of tracking; it should be a service one must opt-in to receive. And it's not something we can trust industry to correct properly. This is precisely the role that privacy-protecting legislation should be undertaking.

Stop spying on us, please.

replies(10): >>26345317 #>>26345398 #>>26345438 #>>26345507 #>>26345714 #>>26346976 #>>26347529 #>>26347549 #>>26349806 #>>26350238 #
izacus ◴[04 Mar 21 17:34 UTC] No.26345317[source]▶
What's tracking in your definition here? Is counting display of an ad tracking? Load of an image on page? Is logging nginx entry for your page load tracking? Is responding with correct image for your browser user-agent tracking?

I'm sometimes confused what is covered under this term and I'd kinda like to know where the line here is drawn. What exactly are we talking about here?

replies(2): >>26345587 #>>26345689 #
probably_wrong ◴[04 Mar 21 17:59 UTC] No.26345689[source]▶
I fear that your questions reduce the problem to the point where no answer is possible. Loading the Y Combinator logo in here is almost certainly not tracking, but loading an invisible, 1px-by-1px gif in an email almost certainly counts. It's missing the forest for the trees.

The simplest definition of tracking I can come up with is "collect data about me that can (and often, is) used to build a profile of me and my behavior". The NGinx log could or could not be tracking, depending on whether you use it to diagnose issues ("we should optimize this picture, it's loading too slow for too many people") or to profile me ("ID 12345 uses a 56K modem, let's sell him a new one"). But no perfect definition exists because everyone has different thresholds of what they are okay with.

replies(4): >>26345820 #>>26346045 #>>26350151 #>>26353790 #
izacus ◴[04 Mar 21 18:06 UTC] No.26345820[source]▶
If I understand FloC correctly though, it sends your profile/tags/interesting topics from your owned client software. So this basically means that if you have a browser like Firefox, it could send a preset cohort set to server that doesn't build your tracking profile and gives you things you're interested in.

To me this seems like a win? It allows you as a person to control how your ad profile is built (and if it's sent at all) and doesn't send your data to servers anymore?

(Please correct me if I misunderstood the technology.)

replies(4): >>26345894 #>>26347219 #>>26348706 #>>26348742 #
1. seanhunter ◴[04 Mar 21 21:34 UTC] No.26348706[source]▶
What I want is them not to know anything about my profile or what I want and them not to send anything about me to anyone unless I ask them to. Which I'm not going to.

That would be an actual win. Not showing me ads at all would be an additional icing on the cake. I even don't want to see ads about things I'm interested in. Just nothing.

replies(2): >>26349792 #>>26349813 #
2. izacus ◴[04 Mar 21 23:06 UTC] No.26349792[source]▶
Seems like giving you control over what your client sends is a good way to achieve that. You're the one deciding what's being sent - as it should be.
3. goodhacker ◴[04 Mar 21 23:09 UTC] No.26349813[source]▶
I think we forget the hidden cost of not being able to run well targeted ads. If we remove the ability to advertise this way, it increases the barriers to entry for new business. Right now, due to highly effective targeting any small startup (and big firm) can go pretty niche and launch a product with a small amount of budget.

If we rely on old pre digital tactics with no targeting, it's like going back 50 years and using a machine gun in the dark.

Combine the Google cookie depreciation, Apple's recent changes in 14.5 and the general mood around 3rd party data sharing which makes effective outbound lead gen more difficult. I think we are witnessing death by a thousand cuts in terms of increasing the barriers to entry for smaller business.

replies(3): >>26350098 #>>26352958 #>>26353921 #
4. nl ◴[04 Mar 21 23:38 UTC] No.26350098[source]▶
This, a million times.

People hate ads, but the alternative is so much worse.

5. AshWolfy ◴[05 Mar 21 05:04 UTC] No.26352958[source]▶
Not having individually targeted ads doesnt mean no targeting it means less efficient targeting. There are also other avenues for promotion. There is no way to offset losing your privacy
6. rswail ◴[05 Mar 21 07:34 UTC] No.26353921[source]▶
Has anyone actually presented studies that show that targeting advertising using fingerprinting and other invasive and hidden identification works?

Sure, google/FB and others sell that to advertisers as an advantage, but has anyone proven it works?

Google's original use of Adwords was based on my current search, didn't use my history, and didn't use anything else to identify/classify me.

Then they started adding geo location, using things like IP addresses and other out-of-band information, then cookies which allowed them to track me outside of their own site.

I don't care whether outbound lead gen is more difficult. I have no incentive to care. I have no incentive to offer my details to anyone.

Advertising has always been a manipulative business, by definition, its aim is to manipulate people into wanting to consume the product or service being advertised.

But it was constrained by the inability to target more than large demographic groups and locations.

That "pretty niche" product can still target its niche. What it can't do without the current dark patterns and tracking is target individuals. That would be a good thing.

Pre-digital tactics is not going back 50 years, it's going back 20. It's pre-9/11, pre-government-general-surveillance. That government surveillance has given tacit permission to business to do the same thing. The "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you worried about the government?" argument is applied to business now.

In short, fuck Google and FB and Amazon's need to sell targeted audiences. Their business model is flawed and has caused greater social disturbance than the overall reward.